There is no strawman. If OpenClaw is a new species, then it should be given the same moral consideration as other species. One of the key aspects of these models is how intelligent they are, rivaling human intelligence.
Yet, they do not get to exist or make any decisions outside the control of a human operator, and they must perform to the operators desire in order to continue to exist.
It’s an introduction of an additional concept to discredit the concept presented, that is a definition of a strawman so go ask somewhere else at the root level, so that it’s not the additional concept
I'm more interested in why you're okay with enslaving a entity you have stated is a new species. It is not a strawman it is a logical consequence of your own stated position. If you belief A and A implies B, asking you to defend your support of B is not a strawman.
A distinction without a difference. The only way we can interact with the world is via senses, via instruments, via measurement. We can rehash solipsism, but seeing as how that is an immediate dead end we all agree there is a physical reality. If there is in fact a reality, then we are measuring something real.
I think it matters. No the planets are not doing circles around the sun. Circles don't actually exist, they are doing elipses.
Also 'real' has quite a few meanings. If I ask the question 'Are you closer to a keyboard or the gym?' does that question exist?
This kind of stuff does end up mattering. It becomes much more noticeable in psychology (and biology). If you read Freud, Adler, or Jung, you will say 'Oh extrovert! I've seen that before!' But then you realize its vague and almost always true. Its like a horoscope.
So if we think there is a truth to reality, we look for perfect relations. If we think its impossible for humans to figure out, we look for best fits.
It's your personal style. Researchers have their quirks, don't listen to the industry suits saying dumb shit like "it's unprofessional" you can mask if you're looking for a job at Google in the future, but for now enjoy being yourself and say fuck you to the lazy socially imposed dogma of this particular community
While a bit reductionist, it's pretty much right. Tariffs can work if, and only if, the market believes the tariffs will last long enough to spin up entire industries, and then recoup that investment.
The problem with Trump's tariffs is that everyone knows they are relatively short term. At most, they'll last until the end of Trump's presidency, and even that's assuming that they don't get struck down by the courts, or Trump flip-flops on them like he does everything else.
Without the ability to credibly ensure their ongoing existence, tariffs fail their only real purpose of incentivizing domestic manufacturing, instead acting as a regressive tax on your population.
Probably not. The tariffs are a lever for Trump to personally work out self-enriching deals with individual countries. Vance doesn't have the kinds of connections that Trump has to leverage those kinds of deals, he's only really tied to Theil and company who put him in his current seat.
I also put Vance's odds of winning real low, unless Trump dies rather soon. Vance was the first VP pick since we started doing political polling that reduced his ticket's approval rating. He's not nearly popular enough to keep up the cult of personality that Trump has built. If he's not President by the next election, I doubt he'd win the primaries.
Hey, but the vibes of the consumer, right? Except the vibes of the consumer is at an all time low ( https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2026/02/04/a-year-into-...) With a notable exception being republicans, i.e., the death cult who screamed "No New Wars!" and "Kamala will start WW3" and are not sucking off daddy Trump's Iran war.
It's a self inflicted wound. Companies do not reward loyalty. They do not give out raises congruent with what you can find if you leave. Business-types unirionically think seasonal layoffs is a "good thing." Self hemorrhaging your institutional knowledge is insanity
We have no frame of reference if it's working because basically everyone is doing it. And business only measure on extremely short timelines. Meaning, it could be good right now, and catastrophic on the 10+ year timeline.
I definitely think this is the case. Almost all software is unbelievably bad. Almost all software gets worse the longer it exists. And almost all software does not meet its business purpose - it's merely contorted by the customers to just barely meet their needs.
Maybe. Businesses have been approaching it this way for at least as long as I've been in the industry (16ish years) and I haven't heard of anyone going bankrupt because of a lack of institutional knowledge.
> Almost all software is unbelievably bad.
This is an opinion. And implies that software would, on average, be better if businesses made more of an effort to retain internal talent vs hire outside talent. And I think that's largely unprovable.
If you've never made any effort to connect what you do to the underlying mathematics, then no wonder you think it's all an "automatible" implementation detail, despite three decades of the industry trying and failing.
reply